Alright, let’s tackle this one. First of all, it was George Box (I think) who said “all models are wrong, but some are useful”. So, hopefully whatever I say today just adds nuance.
How do you actually correlate media & harsh effects in population studies?
I understand the general concept of reverse engineering the cause of behavior on a case study basis. Case studies isolate the root cause better, at the same time are not regarded as important, because it’s just a case study.
Media researchers and their commissioners are looking for differences in media consumption when they look at populations. They don’t have the resources to dig deeper, nor is it even part of their field. Hence, you’ll likely find what you’re looking for if you’re trying to correlate media consumption & behavior.
Also, how can you quantify media consumption in population studies. You can quantify hours viewed of programs with violence (for example). So how violent? How was the violence portrayed? Was a moral standpoint depicted with the violence? And also, from the consumer side, were they idle, or fully cognitive to the messages?
How effective is meta-analyzing data from a few years ago and today?
In sports science, people still reference human studies from the 1960s. That’s because we didn’t grow a 3rd arm in the 21st century, hence research can still be relevant.
Compare that to studies on media consumption, our media habits are extremely volatile. In fact- I remember just a couple of years ago when being racist on the internet was still cool.
There may be assumptions that are not properly questioned. We know the consensus of relating violent programs on TV with violent behavior. That is generally agreed upon, however I would ask how relevant that is when we take kids today who are getting media from the internet. Are they still susceptible, or even more susceptible to behavior change when they are on a platform that requires more interaction?
My point is that there are holes when applying a population study to literally anything that is not the specific population that was studied. Of course, that can be said for any field, not just media.
Practical questions for the role of media today
In the past, with television, you could make broader assumptions since every viewer of a particular channel would be consuming the same media. Whether they are cognitive to all the messages is a different debate, however still just compare that to the vast internet where everybody has their own niche.
I also think it is not practical to ask if every corner of the internet is created to be an enriching experience. Rather, any mass media source on the internet could be questioned on the overall good and bad they cause.
Take for example the corona virus epidemic. Is reporting on it meant to be sensational or cause panic? Does it also educate and aware people of an issue? It likely does all those things, hence going back to my first statement- nuance.
Thanks for reading folks, see you next time!
shern.health.blog 